The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right that cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the mere existence of pending criminal proceedings.

Heard Sri Ch. Phani Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Niranjan, learned Panel Counsel for respondents 1 & 2, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 3^rd respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application vide file No.VJ50673433111125 dated 27.01.2025 to the 2^nd respondent seeking for issuance of a passport. A short gall notice dated 04.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner due to an adverse police verification report.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted an explanation; however, the copy of the same is not available. Learned counsel submits that mere pendency of a crime is not a ground to deny issuance of a passport.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that a case in Crime No.126 of 2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 333, 329(3), 324(2), 351(2), 115(2) r/w 190 of BNS against the petitioner and others by Denduluru police. Learned counsel further submits that the police have not filed any final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate so far.

5. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , [(1978) 1 SCC 248): AIR 1978 SC 597] observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone.

6. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, [(2019) Supreme (SC) 1516] , observed as under:

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

7. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi , [2013 (15) SCC Page 570]

observed as follows:

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India .”

8. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the aspect of cognizance by the jurisdictional Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows:

“16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court‟, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.”

9. In the case at hand, police have not filed a final report before the jurisdictional court. Mere pendency of a crime is not a bar for issuing the passport. The law presumes an accused to be innocent till guilt is proved.